Analysis of Offshore Wind Power Potential Considering Different Mesh Shapes in the Presence of Prevailing Wind and Deeper Water Depth: A Case Study in Akita, Japan
Abstract
1. Introduction
- What is the theoretical maximum OWP resource available within the defined study area based purely on wind resource and water depth criteria?
- How is this potential reduced when applying a comprehensive set of social constraints?
- What is the estimated technical potential for both fixed-bottom and floating OWP technologies, considering current technological limitations?
- To what extent does the shape of the mesh affect the potential of OWP?
- Clarifying the impact of rectangular mesh analysis considering prevailing winds on potential assessment.
- Quantitatively demonstrating the power generation potential of both fixed-bottom and floating offshore wind, thereby contributing to necessary infrastructure development and policies such as future grid enhancement plans.
- Evaluating the potential in deep-sea areas with water depths exceeding 200 m, providing guidance for future technological development of floating offshore wind power.
2. Methodology
- The wind turbine standards were set.
- We created mesh data representative of the size of one wind turbine that was being considered for installation in one mesh. The average wind speed and water depth data were assigned to the mesh data.
- The annual power generation potential off the coast of the target area was obtained by summing the amount of electricity generated by each mesh. The amount of power generation for each mesh was estimated from the average wind speed and the occurrence rate of wind speed, which were obtained from the Rayleigh distribution.
2.1. Wind Turbine Standards
2.2. Mesh Data Creation
- ➀
- A wide area including the target area was divided by a mesh on the GIS.
- ➁
- A mesh was selected whose distance from the center of the mesh to the coast was more than 1.5L km and less than 30 km. Here, L denotes the length of the long side of the mesh. The reason why we used 1.5L km instead of L km is that a part of the mesh will be on land if the distance is L km. Since the onshore areas along the coast may be cliffs or onshore wind farms, we chose 1.5L km so that the entire mesh would be in the sea.
- ➂
- The wind speed and water depth data were assigned to the created mesh. The average wind speed and water depth data were available in the form of mesh data [18,19]; however, the mesh size of the obtained data was different from the mesh size used in this study. The average wind speed data [19] is 500 m grid mesh data, representing the average values over a 20-year period from 1995 to 2014. Similarly, the water depth data [18] is also 500 m grid mesh data, consistent with the wind speed data. Therefore, the average wind speed and water depth data were converted to point data, and the point data were assigned to the created mesh on the GIS platform through a spatial join. If there were multiple point data in one mesh, the average value for wind speed and the maximum value for water depth were assigned, respectively. If no point data existed within a mesh, the nearest point data from the mesh’s centroid was assigned.
2.3. Annual Power Generation Potential
2.4. Case Setting
2.5. Potential at Deeper Water Depths
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Created Mesh and Capacity Potential
3.2. Comparison with Conventional 1 km2 Square Mesh
3.3. Electricity Generation Potential
3.4. Potential at Deeper Water Depths
3.5. Livilized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Díaz, H.; Guedes Soares, C. Review of the current status, technology and future trends of offshore wind farms. Ocean Eng. 2020, 209, 107381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Wang, G.; Li, Z.; Yang, S.; Chong, W.T.; Xiang, X. A review on development of offshore wind energy conversion system. Int. J. Energy Res. 2020, 44, 9283–9297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, T.D.; Dinh, M.C.; Kim, H.M.; Nguyen, T.T. Simplified floating wind turbine for real-time simulation of large-scale floating offshore wind farms. Energies 2021, 14, 4571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, E.C.; Holcombe, A.; Brown, S.; Ransley, E.; Hann, M.; Greaves, D. Evolution of floating offshore wind platforms: A review of at-sea devices. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 183, 113416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Generation Costs in 2022; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2022; ISBN 9789292605445. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, R.; Zhao, F.; Backwell, B.; Lee, J.; Patel, A.; Hutchinson, M.; Qiao, L.; Nguyen, T.; Lathigara, A.; Liang, W.; et al. Global Offshore Wind Report 2024; Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC): Lisbon, Portugal, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Global Wind Energy Council. Global Offshore Wind Report 2025; Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC): Lisbon, Portugal, 2025. [Google Scholar]
- International Energy Agency. Japan 2021 Energy Policy Review; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Wakiyama, T.; Kuriyama, A. Assessment of renewable energy expansion potential and its implications on reforming Japan’s electricity system. Energy Policy 2018, 115, 302–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuriyama, A.; Liu, X.; Naito, K.; Tsukui, A.; Tanaka, Y. Importance of Long-Term Flexibility in a 100% Renewable Energy Scenario for Japan. Sustain. Sci. 2024, 19, 165–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogdanov, D.; Oyewo, A.S.; Mensah, T.N.O.; Nishida, Y.; Saito, T.; Aikawa, T.; Kimura, S.; Gagnebin, M.; Pescia, D.; Shimoyama, T.; et al. Energy transition for Japan: Pathways towards a 100% renewable energy system in 2050. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2023, 17, 3298–3324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karamanski, S.; Erfort, G. Wind Energy Supply Profiling and Offshore Potential in South Africa. Energies 2023, 16, 3668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonthu, S.; Purvaja, R.; Singh, K.S.; Ganguly, D.; Muruganandam, R.; Paul, T.; Ramesh, R. Offshore wind energy potential along the Indian Coast considering ecological safeguards. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2024, 249, 107017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Przewoźniak, M.; Wyrwa, A.; Zyśk, J.; Raczyński, M.; Pluta, M. Conducting a Geographical Information System-Based Multi-Criteria Analysis to Assess the Potential and Location for Offshore Wind Farms in Poland. Energies 2024, 17, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinhoza, A.; Schaeffer, R. Brazil’s offshore wind energy potential assessment based on a Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 146, 111185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardenhagen, Y.; Nakata, T. Regional Spatial Analysis of the O ff shore Wind. Energies 2020, 13, 6303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Japan Oceanographic Data Center Water Depth Data of 500 m Mesh. Available online: https://jdoss1.jodc.go.jp/vpage/depth500_file_j.html (accessed on 8 September 2023).
- NEDO. NeoWins. Available online: https://appwdc1.infoc.nedo.go.jp/Nedo_Webgis/index.html (accessed on 8 September 2023).
- Desmond, C.; Murphy, J.; Blonk, L.; Haans, W. Description of an 8 MW reference wind turbine. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2016, 753, 092013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emeis, S. Wind Energy Meteorology. In Atmospheric Physics for Wind Power Generation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 978-3-319-72859-9. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Environment Renewable Energy Potential System. Available online: https://repos.env.go.jp/web/ (accessed on 3 August 2025).
- Gupta, N. A review on the inclusion of wind generation in power system studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 530–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, J.; Jelly, N. Energy Science, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-0-19-875581-4. [Google Scholar]
- Bidaoui, H.; El Abbassi, I.; El Bouardi, A.; Darcherif, A. Wind Speed Data Analysis Using Weibull and Rayleigh Distribution Functions, Case Study: Five Cities Northern Morocco. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 32, 786–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, A.; Nejad, A.R. Effect of wind speed distribution and site assessment on pitch bearing loads and life. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2507, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nishimura, H.; Asami, Y.; Murakami, T. Statistical investigation on the air density near ground in severs storms. J. Wind Eng. 2000, 84, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruddle, K. Administration and conflict management in Japanese coastal fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Rep. 1992, 273, 93. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Act on Promoting the Utilization of Sea Areas for the Development of Marine Renewable Energy Power Generation Facilities. Available online: https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3580/en (accessed on 8 September 2023).
- Shiraki, H.; Sugiyama, M.; Matsuo, Y.; Komiyama, R.; Fujimori, S.; Kato, E.; Oshiro, K.; Silva, D.H. The role of renewables in the Japanese power sector: Implications from the EMF35 JMIP. Sustain. Sci. 2021, 16, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onodera, H.; Delage, R.; Nakata, T. The role of regional renewable energy integration in electricity decarbonization—A case study of Japan. Appl. Energy 2024, 363, 123118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaissière, A.C.; Levrel, H.; Pioch, S.; Carlier, A. Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm projects: The current situation in Europe. Mar. Policy 2014, 48, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obane, H.; Kazama, K.; Hashimoto, H.; Nagai, Y.; Asano, K. Assessing areas suitable for offshore wind energy considering potential risk to breeding seabirds in northern Japan. Mar. Policy 2024, 160, 105982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikami, K.; Kazama, K.; Kazama, M.T.; Watanuki, Y. Mapping the collision risk between two gull species and offshore wind turbines: Modelling and validation. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 316, 115220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biodiversity Center of Japan Seabird Colony Database. Available online: https://www.sizenken.biodic.go.jp/seabirds/ (accessed on 3 August 2025).
- Campanile, A.; Piscopo, V.; Scamardella, A. Mooring design and selection for floating offshore wind turbines on intermediate and deep water depths. Ocean Eng. 2018, 148, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Z.; Liu, X.; Lotfian, S. Impacts of water depth increase on offshore floating wind turbine dynamics. Ocean Eng. 2021, 224, 108697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agency of National Resources and Energy. Handbook of Electric Power Industry; Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry; Agency of National Resources and Energy: Tokyo, Japan, 2019; ISBN 978-4-8065-3025-1.
- Farr, H.; Ruttenberg, B.; Walter, R.K.; Wang, Y.H.; White, C. Potential environmental effects of deepwater floating offshore wind energy facilities. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 207, 105611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, S.C.L.; Somerfield, P.J.; Lemasson, A.J.; Knights, A.M.; Edwards-Jones, A.; Nunes, J.; Pascoe, C.; McNeill, C.L.; Schratzberger, M.; Thompson, M.S.A.; et al. The global impact of offshore wind farms on ecosystem services. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2024, 249, 107023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agency of National Resources and Energy. Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy. Available online: https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/committee/council/basic_policy_subcommittee/index.html#cost_wg (accessed on 3 August 2025).
- International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Cost Database Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020; ISBN 978-92-9260-244-4. [Google Scholar]
- Satymov, R.; Bogdanov, D.; Breyer, C. Techno-economics of offshore wind power in global resolution. Appl. Energy 2025, 393, 125980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benabadji, A.S.; Rahmoun, K.; Bahar, F.A.; Dahani, A.; Martinez, A.; Iglesias, G. Geospatial LCOE analysis for floating offshore wind energy in SW Mediterranean Sea. Renew. Energy 2025, 245, 122797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ERM Japan Ltd. Offshore Wind Development and Its Local Socio-Economic Impact in Akita Prefecture; ERM Japan Ltd.: Yokohama, Japan, 2025; Available online: https://www.erm.com/contentassets/667d29fe38cd446ab818e9f27464d272/0751034---oep---akita-offshore-wind-gva-report_rev-6.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2025).
Unit Capacity [MW] | Rotor Diameter [m] | Hub Height [m] | Cut-In Velocity [m/s] | Cut-Off Velocity [m/s] |
---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 126 | 90 | 3 | 25 |
8 | 164 | 110 | 4 | 25 |
10 | 178 | 119 | 4 | 25 |
Case | Item | Constraints for Excluding Meshes |
---|---|---|
Base | Distance from the shoreline | Greater than 30 km |
Natural | Distance from the shoreline | Greater than 30 km |
Wind speed | Less than 6.5 m/s | |
Water depth | Deeper than 200 m | |
Social | Distance from the shoreline | Greater than 30 km |
Wind speed | Less than 6.5 m/s | |
Water depth | Deeper than 200 m | |
Fishing rights | The area within the fishing rights |
Case | Structure | Capacity of Unit Wind Turbine | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 MW | 8 MW | 10 MW | ||
Base | 4172 | 2412 | 2025 | |
Natural | Fixed-bottom | 587 | 291 | 234 |
Floating | 1858 | 1074 | 889 | |
Social | Fixed-bottom | 205 | 96 | 81 |
Floating | 1769 | 1013 | 831 |
Case | Structure | Capacity of Unit Wind Turbine | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 MW | 8 MW | 10 MW | ||
Base | 13,695 | 7936 | 6638 | |
Natural | Fixed-bottom | 1910 | 952 | 807 |
Floating | 6121 | 3563 | 2976 | |
Social | Fixed-bottom | 726 | 375 | 324 |
Floating | 5871 | 3417 | 2858 |
Mesh Shape | Structure | Number of Meshes [-] | Power Generation Potential [TWh/Year] |
---|---|---|---|
Rectangular | Fixed-bottom | 807 | 25.8 |
Floating | 2976 | 102.2 | |
Square | Fixed-bottom | 1013 | 32.6 |
Floating | 3024 | 104.7 |
Case | Water Depth d | Offshore Wind Power Potential [TWh/Year] | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 MW/Unit | 8 MW/Unit | 10 MW/Unit | ||
Base | 69.8 | 67.1 | 69.0 | |
Natural | d < 50 | 9.1 | 7.6 | 7.5 |
50 ≤ d < 200 | 31.3 | 30.0 | 30.5 | |
200 ≤ d < 300 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 6.6 | |
300 ≤ d < 400 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 4.9 | |
400 ≤ d < 500 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.7 | |
500 ≤ d < 600 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
600 ≤ d < 700 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.0 | |
700 ≤ d < 800 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | |
800 ≤ d < 900 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.1 | |
900 ≤ d < 1000 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | |
1000 ≤ d | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.5 | |
Social | d < 50 | 3.3 | 2.6 | 2.6 |
50 ≤ d < 200 | 29.9 | 28.4 | 28.8 | |
200 ≤ d < 300 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 6.2 | |
300 ≤ d < 400 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 4.7 | |
400 ≤ d < 500 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.7 | |
500 ≤ d < 600 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
600 ≤ d < 700 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.0 | |
700 ≤ d < 800 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | |
800 ≤ d < 900 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.1 | |
900 ≤ d < 1000 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | |
1000 ≤ d | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.5 |
Case | Water Depth d | Offshore Wind Power Potential [TWh/Year] | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 MW/Unit | 8 MW/Unit | 10 MW/Unit | ||
Base | 228.4 | 220.8 | 225.9 | |
Natural | d < 50 | 29.7 | 24.9 | 25.8 |
50 ≤ d < 200 | 103.1 | 99.8 | 102.2 | |
200 ≤ d < 300 | 19.8 | 20.2 | 20.9 | |
300 ≤ d < 400 | 15.9 | 15.5 | 15.5 | |
400 ≤ d < 500 | 13.8 | 13.8 | 14.6 | |
500 ≤ d < 600 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 3.3 | |
600 ≤ d < 700 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.6 | |
700 ≤ d < 800 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 3.4 | |
800 ≤ d < 900 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 3.6 | |
900 ≤ d < 1000 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.0 | |
1000 ≤ d | 28.9 | 29.2 | 30.0 | |
Social | d < 50 | 11.6 | 10.0 | 10.5 |
50 ≤ d < 200 | 99.3 | 96.1 | 98.7 | |
200 ≤ d < 300 | 18.9 | 19.2 | 19.9 | |
300 ≤ d < 400 | 15.6 | 15.1 | 15.1 | |
400 ≤ d < 500 | 13.8 | 13.8 | 14.6 | |
500 ≤ d < 600 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 3.3 | |
600 ≤ d < 700 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.6 | |
700 ≤ d < 800 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 3.4 | |
800 ≤ d < 900 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 3.6 | |
900 ≤ d < 1000 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.0 | |
1000 ≤ d | 28.9 | 29.2 | 30.0 |
Year | 2023 | 2040 |
---|---|---|
Solar PV (Commercial) | 10.9 | 8.4 |
Solar PV (Residential) | 14.5 | 10.1 |
Onshore wind | 16.3 | 14.5 |
Offshore wind (Fixed-bottom) | 30.9 | 14 |
Offshore wind (Floating) | 21.7 | |
Geothermal | 16.4 | 16.4 |
Biomass | 32.9 | 32.9 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Furubayashi, T.; Tsujie, K. Analysis of Offshore Wind Power Potential Considering Different Mesh Shapes in the Presence of Prevailing Wind and Deeper Water Depth: A Case Study in Akita, Japan. Energies 2025, 18, 4187. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18154187
Furubayashi T, Tsujie K. Analysis of Offshore Wind Power Potential Considering Different Mesh Shapes in the Presence of Prevailing Wind and Deeper Water Depth: A Case Study in Akita, Japan. Energies. 2025; 18(15):4187. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18154187
Chicago/Turabian StyleFurubayashi, Takaaki, and Komei Tsujie. 2025. "Analysis of Offshore Wind Power Potential Considering Different Mesh Shapes in the Presence of Prevailing Wind and Deeper Water Depth: A Case Study in Akita, Japan" Energies 18, no. 15: 4187. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18154187
APA StyleFurubayashi, T., & Tsujie, K. (2025). Analysis of Offshore Wind Power Potential Considering Different Mesh Shapes in the Presence of Prevailing Wind and Deeper Water Depth: A Case Study in Akita, Japan. Energies, 18(15), 4187. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18154187